I have a business planning meeting on Monday night. I received a letter yesterday telling me of the meeting and that this ordinance would be up for discussion.

What I would like is for you to take a look at this and then tell me what kind of holes I can shoot through this thing and what you think- based on experience or your gut- the city can do legally to prevent anything other than what is mentioned here?

Thanks a lot. And remember to shoot holes and I don't care if you are a bad aim.

City of Evansville
Ordinance #2000-7

AN ORDINANCE CREATING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS REGULATION

The Common Council of the City of Evansville. Rock County, Wisconsin, do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Create section 17.80, Evansville Municipal Code, to read as follows:

17.80 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS REGULATION. (1) Purpose. For the public welfare, the Evansville Common Council believes it is important to regulate the size, height, and location of outdoor advertising signs so they do not interfere with vehicular traffic and residents enjoyment of their homes and neighborhoods.

(2) Signs Regulated. The following advertising signs require advance approval of the Plan Commission:

(a) Any sign face of thirty two (32) square feet or greater in area, whether free standing or attached to a building or structure;
(b) Any sign and/or structure the top of which is at a height of ten (10) feet or more on which a sign face is located.

If things are not spelled out the city will have the option of "iterpreting" everything in it the way they see fit.

There are many things in our city code I don't agree with but overall it is a very fair document.

One of the most important things our code has done...is that it is directly related to the zoning ordinances.

By doing this the largest most open part of the code pertains to the areas zoned"I" (industrial)
and the areas recieving the least are zoned "R"
(residential)

Other areas that recieve the same treatment are "C" Commercial and its broken into "C1""C2"and "C3" then there is "O" (office) and "RO" (Resident office)there are more but you get the idea...

Each of these districts have their own allowances and also have restrictions if adjoining a diferent zone...an example would be if you are a "C-1" zone you are required to have a 25 ft set back on all ground signs..unless it adjoins a "C-2"zone (which is a 0' setback)in that case it too is allowed a 0' setback. Logical if you think about it.

In the event a "C-1"ajoins a residential zone the size may be restricted to minimums ...(so as not to offend a residential neighborhood. Logical again...I think.

Some things I find really wrong with our code is the inane thought that all signs must be restricted one size...that would be alright if the names of all businesses had names like ..."ACE" or "Acme" the guy that gets punished here is the guy named "Fitzgibbons Graphics ARTS INSTITUTE". The best solution for this is a Starting Square footage (32' a good standard)with the option of utilizing up to 75% of the total length of your building as long as it doesn't exceed 4" in height" that fits with nearly all materials available.In the event 32 sq ft won't fit on their building then they would still be allowed to utilize the 75% ruling.

Well you can go on and on with this and it can really get complicated...but what ever you do make everything as explicit as you can or YOU will be the one to suffer at a later date.

Oh and one other thing I just thought of... be sure to include proper heights for overhanging signs...site traingles at corners (usually 25'x25') to assure visual safety. And basic footing requirements for ground signage.

Hope I didn't cloud the issues here...just tryin to help.

Oh and might I say...GOOD LUCK!

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Monte Jumper ]

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Monte Jumper ]

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Monte Jumper ]

Going the other way, you can really crap up an otherwise nice town by having no regulation of any kind for anything below ten feet and 32 square feet. So a merchant can write his name on cardboard with a crayon and put it out front and that's ok?

This planning commission meets once each month, more if there's something like a special vote. Funny part about that was that they said that they'd be willing to take 10 minutes to come in and vote if needed. And yes, these folks WOULD like to pick the font, color... you name it.

Pick a town close to you that has a sign code that allows good looking well done signage and copy theirs...it's available to anyone that askes for it and this commission your talking about will know the town you talking about so it should be easy to sell.

How old a town is this Evansville anyway?

So if your going to have a vague code that is at all interpreted on the fly by the sign police, then the only penalty that is fair to impose, IMHO is requiring removal of the sign. If a business thinks a sign is compliant, & 6 months later some sign cop's own interpretation says it's not, they cannot reasonably expect to charge a fine higher then when they catch another violation after one day.

They say ignorance of the law is no defense, but that can only be fair if the law is clear.

32 sq. ft. is pretty good, we can only go 12 before a permit is required, but have it read "over 32 sq. ft." or you will be ripping a slice off your 4' x 8's Otherwise you might as well make it "over 24 or 28 sq. ft." because some clients will pick the size that doesn't require advance approval. Make that size a size that minimizes waste.

The reason for an ordinance is to prevent something from happening. What might happen? Sign out of scale with building? Placed in location that is uncomplimentary with architecture? Obstructs someone elses sign? Calls so much attention that it might be a safety issue? Is in bad taste?

The meeting is tonight and I feel better prepared to discuss things in a knowlegeable manner. I have obtained much information here as well as in my surrounding cities. I think that the situation is kind of like this... it's not really a unique situation, many of you have experienced similar situations on a regular basis. I've dealt with many codes in many towns for many years but with this the "uniqueness" seems to lie in the particular group of individuals that make up the planning commission, the city council and the city administration AT THIS TIME. Elections can change things.

My concern here is that Wisconsin cities like ours have until 2010 to comply with a state statute that requires a "SMART GROWTH" plan to be in effect. This means that since they are in the process of establishing this code (smart growth) they may not act on certain matters in a timely fashion. Talks of a moritorium on not only the sign code but other items as well have raised many eyebrows. If this happens, the part where sign police interpret the non-code may cause some headaches until the new SMART GROWTH plan is in effect.

My tricky part here is to remain diplomatic and professional about the whole thing. It's easy to get really frustrated when seemingly reasonable people (city adimin and the appointed or elected) seem to have no clue when it comes to THIS matter.

Monte asked how old we are... Est. 1839. I know, how the heck did they not have a code until now. Beats me!?

You have all helped a great deal. Once again it is great to know I can ask a lot of dumb questions and get some really good advice. I plan to have more dumb questions or maybe at least a dumb update in the future.

The business meeting went well, many are concerned about the way the ordinance is written. In an earlier response the idea of "leaving a lot up for interpretaion" came up. Well, you were right.

After the business meeting there was this month's edition of the planning commission. The festivities began with the regular stuff, reading of the minutes... community concerns from the residents. (I got in there just as they were closing this portion... the meeting started at 7:00 and I arrived at 7:03. The next 90 minutes were devoted to whether or not the local Radio Shack dealer could place a U.S. Cellular lighted sign (3' x 8') on his building.

Much discussion was made about the extra light... how it would bother the neighbors. Oh, yeah, no one lives next to radio shack so let's make an issue out of THAT for an extended period of time.

I have to hand it to the Radio Shack guy, he was very diplomatic and remained cool the whole time. He also pointed out that he has two other stores in two other nearby communities and did not experience ANYTHING like this when placing signs on those locations.

The lack of sign code was mentioned several times with the mayor finally resorting to his "gotta rant about something" part of the session. So he went on to explain that they were doing everything possible to get this code written (not) and we'd have to live by the recommendations of the planning commission.

The motion was shot down 4 to 3. No U.S. Cellular sign for Radio Shack.

Funny part of this is the idea that any location that went through the site plan review process since 1998 must go before the plan commission if the sign is one mentioned in the ordinance (first post). Next door to Radio Shack in the same NON-RESIDENTIAL part of town is a heating and cooling contractor who put his business up in 1995. It is a large and very nice looking, professional building with landscaping and several lighted signs on the building. This person is allowed to place anything he wants anywhere he wants and the city can't say anything about it.